Guess Who Isn’t Running from Community Organizing?

Good to have you back, Al.

Al: Full disclosure...started reading this blog on the recommendation of a friend. I know nothing about community organizing, knew nothing of Alinsky or Kopkind, I'm just a guy sick and tired of the Repubs inability to govern this nation and the excuse for a President that leads them. Now I spent a few minutes this morning doing a little research on Alinsky and Kopkind as my curiosity was raised. After which, I must say, you've got be effing kidding me that they censored that post on the Ex-Field site. I can't wait to hear the story, and I'm sure, at the appropriate time, you'll provide it.

In the meantime, thanks for making the effort to get this blog back up and viable as quickly as you did. Peace.

But the folks at Rural Votes now have ruralvotes.com/thefield forwarding directly to The Back Forty. It's now impossible to access "The Ex-Field".

And still without any statement on their end. Unbelievable.

Congrats on the new home, and landing on your feet. Glad to see your pixels, still saying it exactly as you see it. Fine by me! Don't water it down for anyone. Not that you would, in fact I get the sense you're constitutionally incapable of it :)

Following the fellows reports on the Obama HQ blog and Barack's speech today there is a glimpse of the coherent plan still moving forward. Much like the leaked memo I remember Tim Russert calling to attention. I can remember when there was a problem between several old houses in my village, an old sewer line in violation of new laws. No one could help, officials vaguely threatened if too much noise was made. Julia, my wife who is studying as an Obama Fellow today, went door to door and got every neighbor out there with shovels and we dug it up and fixed it ourselves. No one else still lives in town but while they all still lived here there persisted a powerful sense of identity as a village, a previously lost and abandoned place became attractive enough in part from that spirit that it went from 50% occupancy to what in comparison would classify as 150% occupancy. It is my only previous exposure to these ideas but I am eagerly learning what this could mean for our larger community. Thanks Al.

Since the comments on ex field have been deleted, I am glad I already recorded the address to seek a refund if the donation is not going as intended: ombudskoz@ruralvotes.com

I do hope that as life flows on, healing can take place. Also, that we all remember this is about getting informed so Obama will be the next POTUS! Thanks Al for your insight and wisdom!

That provide the link to the new Field. Will you be doing a post to DKos and the other usual suspects informing everyone of your new home Al?

Alinsky is an enduring presence everywhere but especially in Chicago. A recording of him at NPR has him saying this:
First rule of change is controversy. You can't get away from it for the simple reason- all issues are controversial. Change means movement and movement means friction and friction means heat and heat means controversy.

...that the Obama campaign was behind this, though I knew some would wonder if we should go there. My sense is confirmed by the substantial MSNBC article on the way Hillary's senior thesis was suppressed and the MSM's apparent curiousity.

Obama's politics are frankly moderate and, while his incredible citizen-driven movement scares pretty much everyone currently in power, it's universally admired just for its ability to raise money and get out the vote. So I don't see an Ayers-type attack based on his use of the techniques developed by 'radical' community organizers. The threat to the status quo isn't in his techniques; it's in his method, which we all hope will be maintaining the community-organizing model from the Oval Office to turn us into a country of activists. That will be very, very dangerous for those now in power. Thus we see top Dems moving quickly behind him, hoping they can ride along and not get too badly hurt.

Of course we'll hear more tomorrow when Al posts what will probably be an exhaustive explication of what happened at Rural Votes, but my speculation is that Al's Alinsky-style journalistic organizing was just too scary for Rural Votes. It'll be interesting to see whether it was just Deb or some other machine pols that pushed the effort.

So "Super" Delegate Deb wanted to keep us all in our place - don't be active in the Party - that's only for us “Super” people inside the DNC. I'm glad to see that Obama isn't running away from the previous organizers of progressive movements - I had read in some of his previous interviews that he thought very highly of Alinksy. It was interesting to me the many times Deb K.'s comments were either ill-informed or condescending to the Field Hands --assuming that we knew very little about politics, rural issues, or any other subject matter to which she was wiser and more informed by being a part of the DNC.

Had Deb K. said from the beginning that she had no intention of endorsing before June 4th, I would have had respect for her. But it all seemed like a big ego trip for her to have us pour out our thoughts on the matter only to have it set aside for more than a few weeks and her plan all along was to hide behind the tsunami endorsements of June 4th.

IMHO, she contributed little, if anything, to the dialogue at the former Field; including some very odd comments about the Georgia add-on Clinton delegate in June who was (according to Deb's speculation) voted in by friends. She then wasted no time in chastising us for comments to the effect that Clinton was promoting only herself at the expense of the Democratic party with her “Most Popular Vote Woman” speech the night Obama won the nomination. Those same views of most Field Hands were obviously held by most all leaders of the Party who proceeded to thunk Clinton over the head the next day with a reality hammer. So other than knowing she loves margaritas I have little in common with Deb K. I hope my comments are considered “on topic” as the censorship of Al’s Alinsky post makes clear that within the Democratic Party, there are those who have the DLC unfavorable view of grass roots organizing. I often thought that Deb would be more comfortable in a Clinton run Democratic party than Obama’s new Party. I am very much liking these greener uncensored pastures here.

I've always been suspicious of Deb Kozikowski, I've never been impressed by her. But I always bit my tongue (except for 1 outburst, which I apologized for afterwards) out of respect for Al. I can't say that I'm happy that my instincts were proved correct, but damn. I am not exactly surprised at the way despicable way she's handled this situation. Ego-tripping as usual.

Anyway, enough of that.

How many more people will come out and say they'll NEVER be Obama's VP? lol

Mark Warner and Ted Strickland basically shouted their stance from the rooftops.

While John Edwards has back-tracked a little to say that he'd do whatever Obama asked of him-- including being his VP.

Yesterday the Obama site shared a lot about fellows training. Among the comments were:
"The ultimate goal is to contact voters directly, identify the ones who supports us, and get them to the polls to vote for Barack Obama on Election Day.

Organizing requires three things:

* Leadership that respects and empowers others
* Building relationships, community and commitment around that leadership
* A strategy to puts that community to work to win, with clear set goals and flexible tactics

"Respect, Empower, Include" is the mantra for our campaign and our organizing. We must live this manta on a daily basis. We must be respectful of our co-workers and our supporters; of our own daily projects; of the voters in the state we work; of our opponent and his supporters. Respecting, empowering, and including supporters in our campaign in a meaningful way requires a commitment to volunteer leadership development, training, and accountability.

We are committed to learning about, engaging, and strengthening local communities. We will listen more then we will talk. We will strive to be the best at each of our jobs -- at all levels -- and we will work together to make that happen."

It seems to me, the principles of "Respect, Empower, Include", along with listening rather than talking, is the model that is working in today's world and a step up from controlling from the top by the change agent.

It would have been a mistake to select Mark Warner because he is a shoe-in for the Senate spot and a strong Senate majority is necessary for the party and necessary to rid us of LIEberman.

I don't know why Strickland backed out, but I suspect it has something to do with Hillary. I think all her people will refuse a spot on the ticket because they are still beholden to the Clinton's and are trying to clear the field for her.

I've never posted either your old site or here before, but I'm glad to see you're not letting the bastards keep you down.

Keep blogging. This is one of the more informative ones out there.

What really turned me off about the Democrat Party of old is that they didn't attempt to organize their natural constituency, the working class.

It seemed as though they were content to loose because they would always be in power by dint of the fact that the ruling class needs two parties, so as to give some degree of truth to the 'democracy' meme. Suffice it to say that most of the Dem establishment, with notable exceptions, were weakened, complacent shills for corporate power.

If a new style of community and grassroots organizing marks the difference with Obama, then this would be a welcomed change. We are overdue a progressive era of politics.

However, nothing new is birthed from something old without pain. The whole dust-up about the censorship and the move to the new location is simply an example of labor pains in the midst of birthing something new.

I would hope that some of the more establishment-oriented Fielders would not be too frightened by the narcosphere, and that they will find their way to these new, more nutritious pastures.

For those interested, the full text is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/15/obamas-fathers-day-speech_n_107...

Worth a read, as are most all of his speeches.

LOSE definition: 1 a: to bring to destruction —used chiefly in passive construction b: damn 2: to miss from one's possession or from a customary or supposed place 3: to suffer deprivation of : part with especially in an unforeseen or accidental manner 4 a: to suffer loss through the death or removal of or final separation from (a person) b: to fail to keep control of or allegiance of 5 a: to fail to use : let slip by : waste b (1): to fail to win, gain, or obtain (2): to undergo defeat in c: to fail to catch with the senses or the mind 6: to cause the loss of Pronunciation: \ˈlüz\ LOOSE definition: 1 a: not rigidly fastened or securely attached b (1): having worked partly free from attachments (2): having relative freedom of movement c: produced freely and accompanied by raising of mucus d: not tight-fitting 2 a: free from a state of confinement, restraint, or obligation b: not brought together in a bundle, container, or binding carchaic : disconnected, detached 3 a: not dense, close, or compact in structure or arrangement b: not solid : watery Pronunciation: \ˈlüs\ Used in a sentence: I'm going to lose it if I keep seeing the word loose all over the internets when referring to a candidate not winning. :)

I knew something was really amiss when I read Lenore's comment thanking Deb for returning her donation. So glad I found you here. Read last 5 posts and every comment (they're averaging 4 or 5 per), but no responses to queries on your whereabouts - very Twilight Zony.
Can't wait to read tomorrow's post. Are you still going to Denver in August?

Now back to lurking mode.

Off-topic but I thought this was pretty interesting:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/clark_does_good....
This is a comment from a reader on Yglesias's blog post of an appearance by Wesley Clark talking about McCain and national security. You should watch the video - it's a pretty amazing example of the media-love for John McCain (but, but, but, this is John McCain we're talking about?)
Anyway, I think it is interesting to go after McCain like this on National Security and to go after him hard. I'd like to see more of this happening.

I just want to tell you how happy I am to have found you here Al! I find this entire ordeal with Rural Votes rather disturbing. Let us know if you need contributions to get you to Denver, or to continue this blog. Thanks for keeping me sane!

In the vice presidential matchup polls Obama/Edwards is doing it up big time.

Obama/Edwards wins Missouri by 3 to 11 points

Obama/Edwards wins Oregon by 10 to 17 points

Obama/Edwards wins Minnesota by 7 to 15 points

Obama/Edwards wins Wisconsin by 8 to 15 points

Obama/Edwards wins Iowa by 12 to 26 points

Obama/Edwards wins Ohio by 12 to 18 points

Obama/Edwards wins Virginia by 9 to 18 points

*how can this be when Edwards couldn't even help carry his state in 2004. Hm.